Exercise Natural Fire

Exercise Natural Fire
Name	Exercise Natural Fire
Date	2019–2021 (phases)
Location	Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, California
Participants	United States Department of Defense, United States Air Force, United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Army, National Guard Bureau, Federal Aviation Administration, Bureau of Land Management
Type	Live‑fire, joint, interagency wildfire suppression and resilience exercise
Status	Completed

Exercise Natural Fire

Exercise Natural Fire was a multi‑year, joint interagency exercise conducted to test coordinated responses to large wildland‑urban interface fires and associated cascading crises. The exercise integrated operational planning, live‑fire suppression, aerial assets, civil‑military coordination, and technological demonstrations to improve readiness across federal, state, and local actors. It drew on historical wildfire events, contemporary doctrine, and emerging capability demonstrations to stress test command and control, logistics, and legal frameworks.

Background and Origins

Exercise Natural Fire originated from lessons learned after major incidents such as the 2018 Camp Fire, 2017 Thomas Fire, 2015 Rim Fire, 2013 Yarnell Hill Fire, and 2009 Station Fire. Influential reports from the National Commission on Wildland‑Urban Interface Fires and interagency reviews involving the Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Department of the Interior, and United States Department of Agriculture spurred proposals for systemic training. Planning involved policy offices from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the White House Homeland Security Council, and state governors' offices in Arizona, California, and Nevada. Internationally, exchanges cited procedures from the Country Fire Authority (Victoria) and the New South Wales Rural Fire Service for integrated incident management.

Objectives and Strategic Importance

Primary objectives included validating joint task force procedures articulated in doctrine such as Joint Publication 3-28 and testing interoperability with civil aviation protocols overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration. The exercise sought to refine coordination among the United States Northern Command, North American Aerospace Defense Command, state Adjutant General offices, and municipal emergency management agencies in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Albuquerque. Strategic importance was framed by risk assessments from the National Interagency Fire Center and climate modeling studies referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that forecast increased fire seasons. Sponsors included the Department of Defense Office of Homeland Defense and grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Tactics and Execution

Tactics combined established wildland firefighting methods—listing procedures from the Incident Command System, use of the National Incident Management System, and integration of tactical air resources like those under the Aerial Firefighting Plan—with expeditionary options derived from Marine Expeditionary Units and Army National Guard engineer tasking. Execution phases simulated ember storms, structure ignitions in the Wildland‑Urban Interface (WUI), and concurrent infrastructure failures modeled on scenarios from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Air operations required deconfliction with civil traffic controlled through coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration and Air Traffic Control facilities. Tactical communications incorporated secure links standardized by the Department of Defense Information Network and interoperable radios following guidance from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Participating Units and Equipment

Participants included operational commands such as the United States Air Force 18th Wing, United States Navy Reserve Expeditionary Combat Command, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force elements, and Army National Guard brigades from California National Guard, Arizona National Guard, and Nevada National Guard. Federal agencies included crews from the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Equipment ranged from heavy‑lift assets like the Boeing CH‑47 Chinook and Sikorsky UH‑60 Black Hawk configured for water bucket operations, modular urban search‑and‑rescue teams using vehicles from Federal Emergency Management Agency Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces, aerial retardant tankers such as McDonnell Douglas DC‑10 Air Tanker conversions, and unmanned systems procured under contracts with vendors that had agreements with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate.

Outcomes and After‑Action Analysis

After‑action reports synthesized findings from continuous assessments conducted by teams drawn from the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, and academic partners including researchers from Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, and Arizona State University. Positive outcomes cited improved interoperability among tactical air and ground commanders, streamlined mission assignment processes referencing Stafford Act mechanisms, and validated supply‑chain agreements with commercial partners such as Amazon Web Services for data sharing. Shortcomings highlighted included spectrum deconfliction issues noted by the Federal Communications Commission, constraints on aerial firefighting availability influenced by international commitments (referencing mutual aid with Canada and Australia), and legal ambiguities concerning the use of Department of Defense assets in domestic support operations under the Posse Comitatus Act.

Legal, Ethical, and Environmental Considerations

Legal reviews addressed compliance with domestic statutes like the Posse Comitatus Act and environmental statutes administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, including concerns about retardant chemical impacts regulated under the Clean Water Act. Ethical issues raised encompassed civil‑military boundaries described in analyses by the Harvard Kennedy School and privacy implications associated with persistent surveillance demonstrated by contractors linked to the Defense Innovation Unit. Environmental assessments involved participants from the United States Geological Survey and state natural resource agencies studying post‑exercise impacts on watersheds and habitats, drawing parallels to restoration work following the Yellowstone Fires (1988).

Category:Military exercises Category:Wildfire management